4 Concepts About the Ukraine Crisis That Shouldn't Be So Hard to Understand

And a special bonus extra concept, too

1. It is possible to believe that fascists and other creepy sorts played a notable role in the Maidan uprising and that the revolt was, on balance, a movement for greater freedom.

2. It is possible to believe that the Maidan revolt was a movement for greater freedom and that people elsewhere in Ukraine have legitimate reasons to be aggravated about the new government, and even about the fact that they're ruled from Kiev in the first place.

3. It is possible to believe that there are Ukrainian citizens with legitimate complaints about Kiev and that Russia should not be inserting its military, or indeed any of its influence, into the country.

4. It is possible to believe it's bad that Russia's sticking its snout into its neighbor's affairs and that it would be dumb for the U.S. to intervene to stop it.

Disagree with any of those combinations of views that you want. But don't act as though they're inconceivable. There have been a lot of logical leaps in the debates over the ongoing crisis, particularly—and most dangerously—from the folks who don't seem able to understand #4.

Bonus: It is possible to believe that the U.S. should stay out of the conflict and that it's a good idea to allow increased exports of natural gas, not because that will cut into Putin's power—though that could be a happy effect—but because it's something the government ought to be allowing anyway.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

111 responses to “4 Concepts About the Ukraine Crisis That Shouldn't Be So Hard to Understand”

It is also possible for those ethnic Russians and Russophones who long so much to live under Muscovy hegemony to move a little ways down the Dnieper, rather than importing it into their current nation of residence.

If you’re Russian, yeah, pretty much. When the nation in question is the huge regional bully with a long-standing history of ethnic cleansing and arbitrary re-drawing of national boundaries, it tends to hurt the credibility of their plaintive cries of “self determination!”

I never suggested forcibly removing anyone, and fuck you for the misrepresentation. There exists currently a large nation composed predominantly of ethnic Russians. If living in such a state is an important goal for Russian Crimeans, they have the option to relocate there.

I reject the idea that a majority of 50%+1 ? in what I’m sure would be an exceptionally free and fair vote under armed Russian occupation ? validates ethno-nationalist irredentism. But I guess fuck those Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea who wouldn’t want to be annexed by Russia. Members of those groups (actually ethnically cleansed by Russians in the past) can just move to the rump Ukraine….

.. Or they have an option to vote on what country they want to belong to. Or go independent. Having Russian troops pull back and letting international monitors in to certify the vote would be a good idea though.

The polls cited in a previous article gave public support at 41% in that region, so by all means, do hold a referendum. I’m serious. That seems close enough to let everyone campaign and say their part and hold a vote.

That is what I would have done if I were President. I would have demanded a referendum. If Putin refused, it would take away any pretense of it being anything but a land grab. If he said yes and lost, he would be humiliated. If he said yes and won, the US could gracefully back down.

AND that there would still eb plenty of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea who don’t want to rejoin Russia.

What complicates any moving of the boundaries is that is not 100% either way on whatever side of the border, only mixes. What if southern California wanted to rejoin Mexico? A majority may one day be in favor, but what of the Anglos living in LA who don’t want to be ruled from Mexico City? Are we going to resort to mass forced deportations, such as occurred after WWII, to get everyone on “their” side of the border?

What the United States is in this context is Europe’s agent. Like a sports/entertainment agent.

“Look, Russia, my client is a major star. Major. Popular across all demographics. You either pay through the nose to show your respect, or my client will take his services elsewhere. And he wants Brazilian/Japanese virgin whores and bourbon from the Himalayas in the green room.”

Not really. There’s a lot of guilt by association accusations being tossed around along with the imperialist “sphere of influence” arguments in order to justify Russian aggression. You might think Ukrainians were just born to lick boots.

There is no sense in which expressing any of the above positions requires fidelity to some other position being staked out in this crisis — and no reason for non-interventionists to spew Russian apologia which they would find unsupportable as it applies to the US.

That is just it IMT. Some of the people who don’t want the US to intervene in something do so because they don’t think it is in the US’s interests. But there are always other people who don’t want the US to intervene because they are on the other side.

The first group often doesn’t understand that the second group even exists much less the need to distance themselves from it.

Right, exactly — it amazed me that some Reason commenters thought basing rights in another sovereign country might be an appropriate rationale for invasion. Even most interventionists (myself included) are not so daring when it comes to justifying military occupation.

To your point = Richman seems to think that every US action since the fall of the Soviet Union was all so much ‘justification’ fodder for the current Russian military adventurism.

You’d think he’d just try and stick with his ideological position that “non-intervention is best because of some inherent long term basis for international relations”… but instead he has to go full-retard into giving the Russkies a pass to do ‘whatever’ because, what? NATO didn’t *dissolve*? Because ‘free trade with former Soviet states?’

There are seemingly unexplainable instances of this. In German, Switzerland is formally “Die Schweiz” Turkey is “Die Turkei” but France is only “Frankreich”, mysteriously bereft of a direct article as are most other countries.

Ryan was trying to rescue people from Uim Jones. Jim Jones was a Communist fanatic who was in effect holding his “followers” prisoner – a fanatic who proved to be a *murderous* fanatic. The accounts I’ve read showed that Jones acted so leaving the compound wasn’t an option.

Why not save your scorn for those politicians who *supported* Jones, not the heroic politician who tried to stand up to a Commie thug and lost his life in the attempt?

To be fair, for some people it really is their business. As in their business involves trade with the Ukraine that must pass hrough the Black Sea.

For instance, my company must import certain products that are Ukranian in origin. We need to get those products through customs. Life will be difficult if we’re at war with Russia, or if Russia invades Ukraine and destroys the factory that produces them.

OK, then have your company hire a mercenary group to go protect the factory. Also, you use the word “must import”. I didn’t realize the import/export business worked on “must”, as opposed to “likes to” or “wants to”.

Fair enough but there might be a lot of people who have similar interests in NOT having an expansionist Russia nibbling off bits of other countries and generally forcing everyone else to spend a lot more money on defense.

Again, not that I think we should intervene militarily. I think that we need to make Russia pay for what it did so it’s not tempted to do it again, or to get hungrey for more.

Fair enough but there might be a lot of people who have similar interests in NOT having an expansionist Russia nibbling off bits of other countries and generally forcing everyone else to spend a lot more money on defense.

You’re just an anti-Transdnistrian bigot. Russia has nobly assumed the mantle to defend these proud persecuted people, and their nation is internationally recognized by upwards of one country.

Putin is doing in Crimea what Hitler did in Poland and Czechoslovakia under the guise of saving the “volksdeutsch”. This is definitely not good for Ukraine, but what can America do other than arming Ukraine to the teeth? And arming Ukraine would piss off Russia the way the America was pissed off when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba.

A direct military intervention with Russia is just out of the question, unless Congress (or Obama via Kinetic Military Action) really wants a fight to stop Russian expansionism.

See above: NOT MY PROBLEM I suggest the Euros figure out that they need a defense and a way to live without Russian gas and oil. And I suggest we re-enforce those notions by bringing our troops back from Europe right about now.

I agree that this is definitely not America’s problem. What I’m saying is that even if America gets involved, there are no good choices. The real victim is Ukraine, but there is plenty of historical evidence of statistically superlative countries fucking over the smaller ones.

Every time great powers broker a deal in exchange for a regional power abandoning its nukes and renege on it, it makes pursuing a nuclear program more worthwhile. Can’t say that’s inherently a bad thing, but it only takes one misunderstanding for MAD to break down — and every nuclear-armed participant makes the chance of a critical misunderstanding that much more likely.

Oh yeah? Here’s a fifth concept. There are lots of politicians with throbbing war boners, lots of defense contractors who want to preserve big fat contracts, and lots of Americans who have an economic stake in keeping the defense pork barrel filled to the brim. Plus, HURR DURR RUSSIA COMMIES MUNICH APPEASEMENT PUTINHITLER.

…. with the other 3 being so much window dressing/prevaricating about the reasons “WHY #4.”

I’d also offer that a person might argue that NOTHING in 1-3 really even matters that much.

What matters is simply #4, and making a reasoned argument *why* “it would be dumb to try and stop it”

And the follow-up question from those given reasons would be = What then, is the ‘smart’ thing to do? And what does ‘smart’ even mean, since we’re using the term ‘dumb’ now?

All we got so far from Sheldon ‘Stop Doing Things’ Richman is that results of inaction are meaningless = what is important is that results from actions have possible negative consequences, and are therefore bad.

The thing we will most certainly NOT hear from anyone – Walker, Richman, or anyone else with these *deep insights* into foreign affairs – is any definition of what “Dumb” or “Smart” actually means beyond ‘consistency (or not) with a default non-intervention position’…. regardless of whether this position can/should/would produce any desired results or outcomes.

There probably IS a very good argument for ‘non-intervention’ in the current situation based on a realpolitik notion of what serves our interests best.

No one will ever make that argument here. instead, we will repeatedly see any convenient details they can find draped on top of the foregone conclusion of ‘non-tervention’, all pretending that reality serves to reinforce the inherent wisdom of their premise. When necessary, they will alter reality somewhat to continue to maintain their position. if the protesters were not Nazi-ish-enough last week, they will certainly become so when the Russians start executing Ukrainian opposition leaders, and working toward a forced concession of Eastern Provinces on top of the recent annexation of the Crimea.

“It’s also possible to believe all of the above AND that if Russia doesn’t pay a price for intervening that it will embolden Russian revanchists and make the world a more dangerous place for everyone.”

And the Ukranians and the Euros should definitely take whatever action they see fit.

“Whatever any group of nations agree it is and are willing to collectively use force to enforce it… and its only valid as long as they all agree about it, and agree to pay the costs of enforcement.

Whenever they stop agreeing, they usually change the definitions for a period of time and look the other way.”

Hasn’t someone been moaning about how the State of Israel isn’t like, LEGAL or something for the last 60+ years? International Law is mostly a crock of shit. Any good diplomat knows this. The rest work for the UN.

Parliament was inspired by the unmarked Russian infantry soldiers surrounding their building to determine that their nationalist sympathies were insufficient to guarantee their getting home at the end of the day.

[Bugs stops suddenly with a shock and comes back to Putin, who is trying to light the fuse of the space modulator] Bugs: Eh, pardon me again, Vlad, but, uh, just what did you mean by that crack about the Ukraine being gone? Putin: Oh, I’m going to blow it up; it obstructs my view of the Crimea.

The Pentagon says six US F-15 jets and 60 US military personnel have now arrived in Lithuania to bolster air patrols over the Baltics, Associated Press reports. This adds to the four F-15s and 150 troops that are already patrolling in the area.

Nothing going on in the Ukraine/Crimea changes the fact that the US is a broke-ass socialist failure of a government that can’t do jack shit about what other nations do anymore (a la the USSR circa 1978).

I’m glad to see Walker’s not condoning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, unlike Ron Paul. However, many of these hypothetical possibilities are wildly contrary to the facts of reality. E.g., that most Crimeans would rather be part of Russia than Ukraine: